Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism

Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism

The articles, when read in context, conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader that the allegations of anti-Semitism against the claimant were expressions of opinion, not statements of fact, supported by the hallmarks of opinion and the contentious, ongoing public dispute. The additional allegations in the first article about lying were also opinion, but the allegation of previous criminal convictions was a statement of fact. All meanings found were defamatory at common law.

Parties
Claimant: Tony Greenstein; Defendant: Campaign Against Antisemitism
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Meaning and Fact/opinion
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meanings and fact/opinion identified for each article.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Online Publication, Hyperlinks as Context
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Online Publication Hyperlinks as Context

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Greenstein

Claimant

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Meaning and Fact/opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the five articles?
  2. 2 Are the statements in the articles allegations of fact or expressions of opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The articles, when read in context, conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader that the allegations of anti-Semitism against the claimant were expressions of opinion, not statements of fact, supported by the hallmarks of opinion and the contentious, ongoing public dispute. The additional allegations in the first article about lying were also opinion, but the allegation of previous criminal convictions was a statement of fact. All meanings found were defamatory at common law.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meanings and fact/opinion identified for each article.

Orders

  • First article: The meanings found are (a) the claimant was anti-Semitic (opinion); (b) had lied about the IHRA definition (opinion); (c) had lied to the Charity Commission (opinion); (d) had committed several criminal offences including dishonesty, vandalism, and drug possession (fact). All are defamatory at common...
  • Second to fifth articles: The meaning is that the claimant was anti-Semitic (opinion), defamatory at common law.